The incorrectness of the British victory at Agincourt

We noted last year the unsuccessful attempts to erase from popular consciousness what happened at the famous battle of Trafalgar. A reader points out that earlier British victories are being "revised" too:

Several years ago, while watching the History Channel on TV -- not something I often do these days, for as a medium I consider it largely speaking to be `pollution for the human mind', (TV that is) -- there was a program presented by some modern academics, about The Battle of Agincourt.

Now having once been an attentive little English schoolboy, I remember it well, (the story of the battle that is.). As presented, these scholars dutifully trotted out their new theories as to how the battle had transpired, because as we all now know, since the victors get to write the narrative, and it is now an accepted nostrum that `they lied', they were there to put things right. This was quite simply, the intellectually superior man, correcting the falsity of historical narrative. The good professors, tramped over the actual battlefield -- for what reason I don't know, for now it is just a collection of fields, as to be found anywhere in Europe, unless to impress upon their audience, an assumed sense of unstated certitude, as in they were there, actually at the battlefield so therefore they must know what they are talking about.

The good professors then proceeded to deconstruct the battle, pointing out that it had rained hard the night before. Yes, yes, I already knew that; that the fields were muddy, ditto. That when the superior numbers of French knights advanced, they became bogged down in the mud, so far so good, but now for the good part.

The English archers, credited with cutting down the flower of French knighthood; that bit, well the tale, long famed for the stunning accomplishment against superior forces, was all a fabrication. You see according to these new experts of medieval warfare, quite simply, the English longbow, with its deadly arrows, was according to our experts, totally unable to penetrate the French armor. No mention that shooting the horse that the man in heavy armour was sitting on was pretty fatal. They even gave us a practical demonstration, though the last true makers of English longbows died off a long time ago, not much of a market for them these days. So, I think it safe to assume the example they used was of modern manufacture, don't know, but there might be a difference or two there, just speculating a bit, mind.

What actually transpired according to our new age experts, was that the French got bogged down in the mud (yes, and!), then the nasty, brutal English thugs, jumped in and with great relish set about slaughtering the gallant French knights as they lay helpless on the ground, oh, how ignoble of them, the brutes. Oh the humanity!

Now I don't know about you, but I can well imagine, just about any medieval battle would be brutal. I'm sure that in the thick of the fight, throats got cut, people got killed: it happens that way in battle. Battles are places where people get killed Actually, that was the whole point of the exercise I thought, but what would I know, for I'm just a simple man.

But the unstated but insinuated statement, was that this was not something that the British people should be proud of, rather, something to be atoned for, this was murder. It left a profound distaste in my mind. For in the modern world, this new all inclusive multicultural society, lets all get along PC world, it simply would not do to leave the details of this battle, which took place on 25 of October 1415, to rest upon the page of history, no, that would not do, let's re-write it according to our better feelings.

No mention of course, of what their fate would have been, should the English have lost the battle, hhmmm(?). Don't know, but I doubt it would have been anything pleasant . Being that the archers were drawn from peasant stock, as opposed to the mighty Lords of French chivalry, not too bright methinks. I do seem to recall many tales from the historical record, pertaining to the lamentable way that the high and the mighty tended to treat lesser mortals.

I'm not really surprised that the English fought like devils, the were hopelessly outnumbered, in enemy territory, half starved after a long forced march and cornered. Don't know about you, but I'd fight like the devil too. Now if that offends the delicate sensibilities of some dry, morally superior beings, pontificating behind the safe ramparts of a free society, then too bad f*** 'em I say.

A small silly detail you might say, well yes; but it is in the small details that the fabric of society is formed. From substituting a sense of guilt, in the place of one of accomplishment, to sowing a seed of doubt in the minds of everyday people, who often have no great understanding of events, nor indeed of latent subversive agendas; it becomes possible to sow confusion among the people. And a confused people are an easy people to lead, especially when you can distract them with the newest version of `bread and circuses' . sex and drugs and rock and roll.

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)